Is it any chance to fly 62 lb for each horsepower?

register@teamandras.com said:
OK. And, reordering from slowest to fastest, you get:


At 20 miles an hour, they could sustain 125 lbs/HP
At 38 miles an hour, they could sustain 62 lbs/HP
At 75 miles an hour, they could sustain 30 lbs/HP

I still don't quote follow what this means. Do you?
Click to expand...

Yes, the faster they wanted to go with that airfoil/airframe the less they could weigh.
 
JHW said:
there is no record of the groundspeed because orville had his 496 set to "nearest VOR" page
Click to expand...
Now you know he wasn't using a vor that day. He was too low to get a good reading. Had to use gps
 
gismo said:
I've managed to hit 1 HP (744W) on an eliptical exercise machine for a lot longer than 1ms. These days (63 yr old body) I can't do that for more than 15-20 seconds though, perhaps that's what "briefly" means in this context.
Click to expand...
It's been calculated that powerlifters can produce around 5hp. That's for a quick lift like the clean and jerk.
 
Lindberg said:
Take, for example, the ostrich. He weighs several hundred pounds, but flies fast enough to catch his prey (koala bears, which are not really bears) on much less than one horsepower (compare the size of an ostrich to the size of a horse).
Click to expand...

:lol:

stupid comment. everyone knows that koala bears are real bears.
 
When I read the original post I mentally snorted and thought 'do your own homework' and moved on. But apparently my subconscious has been gnawing away on it like an old bone.
I'm not going to generate numbers for the student but let me point him in a general direction.
First, you are going to need a high lift, slow speed airfoil section. It is going to need to be thick and double cambered. Perhaps something along the lines of the Gottingen 625. Perhaps something with a leading edge slot and a trailing flaperon. I suspect the Gottingen will respond poorly to a slot, perhaps not. Never tried it.

Now, these types of foils have a high pitching moment. To overcome that requires increased downforce on the tailplane which increases the load on the wing which increases drag - TANSTAAFL.
To ameliorate the worst of these drawbacks I would recommend a three surface planform. The leading Canard can help overcome the pitching moment without worsening the already poor LD ratio of the main wing and add to the net lift.

And finally propulsion. I am assuming a piston engine and propeller combination. I see two routes for that. First is a large diameter, two blade, with slow rotation speed. This is likely the most efficient. The other solution would be a multi blade fan in an annular ring.

As an lawyer would say, I leave the student to his strict proofs :D
 
Dr. O said:
When I read the original post I mentally snorted and thought 'do your own homework' and moved on. But apparently my subconscious has been gnawing away on it like an old bone.
I'm not going to generate numbers for the student but let me point him in a general direction.
First, you are going to need a high lift, slow speed airfoil section. It is going to need to be thick and double cambered. Perhaps something along the lines of the Gottingen 625. Perhaps something with a leading edge slot and a trailing flaperon. I suspect the Gottingen will respond poorly to a slot, perhaps not. Never tried it.

Now, these types of foils have a high pitching moment. To overcome that requires increased downforce on the tailplane which increases the load on the wing which increases drag - TANSTAAFL.
To ameliorate the worst of these drawbacks I would recommend a three surface planform. The leading Canard can help overcome the pitching moment without worsening the already poor LD ratio of the main wing and add to the net lift.

And finally propulsion. I am assuming a piston engine and propeller combination. I see two routes for that. First is a large diameter, two blade, with slow rotation speed. This is likely the most efficient. The other solution would be a multi blade fan in an annular ring.

As an lawyer would say, I leave the student to his strict proofs :D
Click to expand...
To pick a random example, sort of like this?
wright_flyer_1903-02515.jpg
 
Henning said:
Well, they used athletes to fly it, and they weighed over 100lbs I'd think, not sure what the rig weighed but I doubt less than 20lbs. So there's 120lbs. 1hp is about 750watts, I used to have a pedal generator and there was no way I was producing 750 watts, probably lucky to be producing 250 watts which is what, 1/3rd of a HP? That Condor rig was about as efficient as it gets, and light.

The key is long, high aspect ratio wings, but yeah, I bet you could make a good motor glider work at 62lbs/HP.
Click to expand...

Gossamer Condor weighed 70 pounds,
 
Just because somebody mentioned the Wright brothers a few times,

According to Wikipedia, Flyer II and III had the same max. speed, 35 mph, but for some unknown reasons Flyer III had a much poorer weight to power ratio

Is that 62 lb/hp a realistic figure for Flyer II or there might be some mistakes in Wikipedia?

Flyer II 1904 (see: Wright Flyer II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
Loaded weight: 925 lb
Powerplant: 1 × water-cooled straight-4 piston engine, 15 hp
Maximum speed: 35 mph (56 km/h)
* Weight/Power at 35 mph = 62 lb/hp

220px-WrightFlyer1904Circling.jpg

Wilbur in Flyer II Circling Huffman Prairie November 1904.


Flyer III 1905 (see: Wright Flyer III - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
Max. takeoff weight: 710 lb
Powerplant: 1 × Wrights' water-cooled, 4-cylinder, inline engine, 20 hp
Maximum speed: 35 mph (56 km/h)
* Weight/Power at 35 mph = 35.5 lb/hp

250px-Wright_Flyer_III_above.jpg

The Wright Flyer III over Huffman Prairie, October 4, 1905, Orville piloting.
 
Last edited:
simplex1 said:
Just because somebody mentioned the Wright brothers a few times,

According to Wikipedia, Flyer II and III had the same max. speed, 35 mph, but for some unknown reasons Flyer III had a much poorer weight to power ratio.
Is that 62 lb/hp a realistic figure for Flyer II or there might be some mistakes in Wikipedia?
Click to expand...

eetrojan gave you all the information you need to figure out the answer to your questions on the pprune.org website.
Why do you persist in these attempts to discredit the Wright Bros.?

Wikipedia has it right and all the numbers are realistic, perhaps you should spend some time with the aeronautical equations for Thrust, Lift and Drag instead of trying to raise doubt by the questions you ask.
 
Last edited:
simplex1 said:
Just because somebody mentioned the Wright brothers a few times
Wilbur in Flyer II Circling Huffman Prairie November 1904.
The Wright Flyer III over Huffman Prairie, October 4, 1905, Orville piloting.
Click to expand...

Why do you reference these images of the Wright Bros. flying in 1904 and 1905 when you have already stated that there is no proof of these flights and you refuse to accept that they actually happened?

Are you now admitting the Wright Bros. claims to flight are actually true?
 
Last edited:
simplex1 said:
I have just found a NASA site:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/Wright/airplane/air1904.html
which says Flyer II weighted 900 lb and its engine developed 18 hp.
This means its weight to power ratio was 50 lb/hp and not 62 lb/hp as in Wikipedia.
Click to expand...
no one knows what these things weighed and none survive in their unmodified form. just talk to some of the guys who have built replicas about the trouble they had sorting through the incomplete historical records.

as for the comments about weight vs speed, you have to remember that they would not have understood the concept of being on the front vs the backside of the power curve. It's safe to say that the 1903 flights were all on the backside of the curve - after the catapult launch they could just barely sustain level flight.
 
Last edited:
I would like to see information about a biplane (or monoplane), having about the same weight and power as Flyer I or II and able to sustain 50 - 62 lb/hp.
 
gismo said:
coloradobluesky said:
One thing that IS useful is this relationship. A gasoline engine like small airplanes have makes 12 horsepower per gallon per hour. What does that mean? Well if you are burning 10 gallons per hour, you are producing 120 horsepower. Now you know your percent of max power (120/180 = 67% power). Etc.

Comes in handy sometimes.
Click to expand...

The relationship between FF and HP varies considerably with mixture and to a lesser extent compression ratio. My engines get about 10 HP/gph at full power with a full rich mixture and close to 15HP/gph in cruise flight.
Click to expand...

What Lance said. And lean of peak, it should be about 14.9 hp/gph, which works out perfectly for me at 65%. (12.2 gph * 14.9 = 280 * .65)

Another data point: I burn 25 gph on the takeoff roll (280hp), so about 11.2 hp/gph there.

But there are too many variables to say that all gasoline engines have a specific ratio of power to fuel burn.
 
In 1906 Santos Dumont flew just 220 m at 25 mph with 13.22 lb/hp while the Wright Brothers made circles in 1904 and 1905 with 62 lb/hp and 35.5 lb/hp, respectively. Farman III 1909, a perfected airplane, having the max. speed about the same as the 1904 and 1905 planes of the american inventors, was able to lift only 24.26 lb/hp.

Flyer II 1904 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer_II )
Loaded weight: 925 lb
Powerplant: 1 × water-cooled straight-4 piston engine, 15 hp
Maximum speed: 35 mph (56 km/h)
* Weight/Power at 35 mph = 62 lb/hp

Flyer III 1905 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer_III )
Max. takeoff weight: 710 lb
Powerplant: 1 × Wrights' water-cooled, 4-cylinder, inline engine, 20 hp
Maximum speed: 35 mph (56 km/h)
* Weight/Power at 35 mph = 35.5 lb/hp

14-bis 1906 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santos-Dumont_14-bis)
Loaded weight: 661 lb
Powerplant: 1 × Antoinette 8V V-8 piston engine, 50 hp
Maximum speed: 25 mph (40 km/h)
* Weight/Power at 25 mph = 13.22 lb/hp

Farman III 1909 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farman_III)
Loaded weight: 1213 lb
Powerplant: 1 × Gnome Omega 7-cylinder rotary engine, 50 hp
Maximum speed: 37 mph (60 km/h)
* Weight/Power at 37 mph = 24.26 lb/hp

As you can see, Flyer II 1904 was a far better airplane than Farman III 1909 if we are to believe the Wright Brothers!!!
 
simplex1 said:
In 1906 Santos Dumont flew just 220 m at 25 mph with 13.22 lb/hp while the Wright Brothers made circles in 1904 and 1905 with 62 lb/hp and 35.5 lb/hp, respectively. Farman III 1909, a perfected airplane, having the max. speed about the same as the 1904 and 1905 planes of the american inventors, was able to lift only 24.26 lb/hp.

Flyer II 1904 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer_II )
Loaded weight: 925 lb
Powerplant: 1 × water-cooled straight-4 piston engine, 15 hp
Maximum speed: 35 mph (56 km/h)
* Weight/Power at 35 mph = 62 lb/hp

Flyer III 1905 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Flyer_III )
Max. takeoff weight: 710 lb
Powerplant: 1 × Wrights' water-cooled, 4-cylinder, inline engine, 20 hp
Maximum speed: 35 mph (56 km/h)
* Weight/Power at 35 mph = 35.5 lb/hp

14-bis 1906 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santos-Dumont_14-bis)
Loaded weight: 661 lb
Powerplant: 1 × Antoinette 8V V-8 piston engine, 50 hp
Maximum speed: 25 mph (40 km/h)
* Weight/Power at 25 mph = 13.22 lb/hp

Farman III 1909 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farman_III)
Loaded weight: 1213 lb
Powerplant: 1 × Gnome Omega 7-cylinder rotary engine, 50 hp
Maximum speed: 37 mph (60 km/h)
* Weight/Power at 37 mph = 24.26 lb/hp

As you can see, Flyer II 1904 was a far better airplane than Farman III 1909 if we are to believe the Wright Brothers!!!
Click to expand...

And they expect us to believe the worlds is round. :rofl:
 
The Wright brothers' plane was highly suspicious according to the Scientific American from Nov. 3, 1906

In an article dedicated to the flight performed by Santos Dumont on Oct. 23, 1906, the Scientific American rose a question regarding the credibility of the 1904 Wright's plane which was miraculously capable to fly at 38 mph, significantly faster than the Brazilian's machine that did not go over 25 mph.

"In comparing the results of Santos Dumont’s experiment with those which the Wright brothers claim to have attained, there is one striking fact, viz., the young Brazilian, although having an apparatus of the same general type as that used by the American experimenters, but of about one-half its weight, found that a 50-horse-power motor was necessary to drive his flier up into the air and forward through it at a speed of 25 miles per hour; while the Wrights, with a machine of twice the weight and half the power, claim to have made nearly double the speed (38 miles per hour). In the experiment just described, Santos Dumont‘s machine lifted only about 10 pounds to the horse-power, while the Wright brothers’ aeroplane, it is claimed, lifted 60"
Surce: "Successful Flight of Santos Dumont's Aeropane", Scientific American, Volume 95, Number 18, pag. 318-319, Nov. 3, 1906, https://archive.org/stream/scientif...n18-1906-11-03#page/n1/mode/1up/search/santos
 
Last edited:
But the Wright Flyer was catapult launched, right? So it didn't need to add nearly as much energy to the system, just enough to maintain flight rather than acceleration from zero.

Could the Farman have succeeded the same if this were an apples to apples comparison?
 
mkosmo said:
But the Wright Flyer was catapult launched, right? So it didn't need to add nearly as much energy to the system, just enough to maintain flight rather than acceleration from zero.

Could the Farman have succeeded the same if this were an apples to apples comparison?
Click to expand...

The original Flyer did not rely on a catapult launch. There were adequate winds at Kitty Hawk to rail launch without assistance. Later, when the Wrights relocated to an inland location (Huffman Prairie) which didn't have reliable winds, they added the catapult.
 
Posting anti-Wright Brothers theories on Pilots of America is like showing up to a Klan rally in blackface.
 
Meh, I don't think anyone on POA really cares beyond the curiosity level, except for Simplex. :rofl:
 
Both catapults or strong headwinds just shorten the take off distance. They do not help a plane stay aloft, assuming it takes off from a flat terrain and no incline is involved.
It is a myth an airplane can perform sustained flights using a weaker engine if it is launched by a catapult of a strong headwind, parallel to the flat land below the plane, blows.
 
Last edited:
simplex1 said:
Both catapults or strong headwinds just shorten the take off distance. They do not help a plane stay aloft, assuming it takes off from a flat terrain and no incline is involved.
It is a mirth an airplane can perform sustained flights using a weaker engine if it is launched by a catapult of a strong headwind, parallel to the flat land below the plane, blows.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Horsepower is about acceleration. The Catapult adds the extra horsepower to accelerate the mass quickly. The headwind to get off quickly helped shorten the duration of friction. Once you are flying, it requires much less horsepower to keep aloft.
 
Henning said:
Incorrect. Horsepower is about acceleration. The Catapult adds the extra horsepower to accelerate the mass quickly. The headwind to get off quickly helped shorten the duration of friction. Once you are flying, it requires much less horsepower to keep aloft.
Click to expand...

Yep. Best L/D is typically not achieved at liftoff speed.
 
Henning said:
Incorrect. Horsepower is about acceleration. The Catapult adds the extra horsepower to accelerate the mass quickly. The headwind to get off quickly helped shorten the duration of friction. Once you are flying, it requires much less horsepower to keep aloft.
Click to expand...

A plane flies when:

T=D (Thrust = Drag)

and

L=G (Lift = Weight)

As you see T, D, L and G are physical quantities specific only to the plane and independent of the catapult characteristics.

Assuming the take off speed is 35 mph, if one has a enormously powerful catapult his plane can take off running just 1 m on the ground and reaching 35 mph but once in the air the thrust generated by the catapult disappears and if the thrust, T, of the plane is not enough to overcome drag, D, the airplane will fall.

Regarding the headwind, if its speed is 35 mph the pilot does not need any runway. He just starts the engine, accelerates the propeller and miraculously at one point the plane gets off the ground and hovers.
 
Last edited:
simplex1 said:
A plane flies when:

T=D (Thrust = Drag)

and

L=G (Lift = Weight)

As you see T, D, L and G a physical quantities specific only to the plane and independent of the catapult characteristics.

Assuming the take off speed is 35 mph, if one has a enormously powerful catapult his plane can take off running just 1 m on the ground and reaching 35 mph but once in the air the thrust generated by the catapult disappears and if the thrust, T, of the plane is not enough to overcome drag, D, the airplane will fall.

Regarding the headwind, if its speed is 35 mph the pilot does not need any runway. He just start the engine, accelerate the propeller and miraculously at one point the plane gets off the ground and hovers.
Click to expand...

Q.E.D., ... for some inexplicable proposition. :rolleyes2:
 
One thing is sure 100%, the Wright Brothers contributed nothing to the progress of powered flight because no picture or technical drawing of their alleged planes became known before 1908, a year when they appeared in France with an inferior machine to what already existed there at the time.
 
simplex1 said:
One thing is sure 100%, the Wright Brothers contributed nothing to the progress of powered flight because no picture or technical drawing of their alleged planes became known before 1908, a year when they appeared in France with an inferior machine to what already existed there at the time.
Click to expand...

Coming from someone who doesn't understand basic force balance?

Lift does not balance gravity at liftoff. The sum of all four forces is zero, a much weaker condition.

Give it a break. No one buys the crackpot arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top